Shottenkirk Boerne, LLC v. Julia Armstrong

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00322-CV

SHOTTENKIRK BOERNE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Julia ARMSTRONG,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-235

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2025 REVERSED AND REMANDED On May 12, 2025, appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal from a December 23, 2024 default judgment. To prevail in a restricted appeal, an appellant “must establish that: (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact

04-25-00322-CV

and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record.” Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 30.

Here, all four elements are undisputed. The clerk’s record shows that appellant timely filed its notice of restricted appeal; it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the challenged judgment; and it did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additionally, appellee concedes that there is error apparent on the face of the record because appellant was not properly served. Accordingly, we reverse the December 23, 2024 default judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM